Tough one, this. Eddie Barlow and Trevor Goddard formed a formidable partnership in the '60s, and while Barlow was the better pure bat, Goddard was a superb all round cricketer. I'm picking neither though.

Bruce Mitchell was a wonderful servant of South African cricket, and for many years the country's all time leading runscorer. Graeme Smith, the modern champion, is an absolute beast of a player and would bring great leadership the side. I'm picking neither.

Who am I picking? First up it's Barry Richards. Yes, I usually try to base all time Test XIs on performances in Test cricket, but there are simply too many good judges who played with and against him and saw him close at hand who testify to his greatness for me to leave him out. I'm not one for blindly believing the hype, but when such praise as Richards gets is damn-near universal, it's hard to ignore.

My other pick is Herbie Taylor. Because he defied Barney when Barney was at his greatest, because I don't think he'll get picked for the middle order against Pollock, Kallis and Nourse, and because he didn't even get a mention in the OP.

Speaking of how the selection works and the all-rounders... I'm not sure picking two opening bowlers and two other bowlers is the correct methodology. Where does Pollock fit? If Donald and Procter is selected as opening bowlers, then where does it leave Steyn? I'd rather just pick three fasts in one go and a spinner to round it up.

I'm also not very sure about the #6 position. I actually feel Pollock will be in with a shout.

Richards.... its just impossible to imagine leaving him out when youve read and heard so much about him in that same admiring and awestruck tone. Overwhelms the admittedly superb competition

Smith... ugliest opener ever by far but hes been brilliant for a while now and deserves a bit of recognition. He's shown his awesomeness in handling pressure situations in difficult conditions and hes provided tons of memorable moments too

Mitchell had absolutely amazing longevity. His career was about twice the length of Smith's career as it stands right now. Unlike the likes of Faulkner, Headley etc., it wasn't two decades with a unwise comeback/sharp decline/retirement-recall either. He played every test through those years and the last quarter of his career was actually the peak of his career fetching him 1072 runs in 10 matches @ 60.55.

You can literally count on your fingertips the amount of batsmen in cricket history who have played for two decades consistently and were world-class pretty much throughout their careers.

Even arguendo Smith's runs are of the same quality/slightly higher quality as Mitchell's, surely that puts Mitchell over the line, comfortably?

Ftr, I think averaging 48 for over two decades in South Africa for an opener was a seriously astonishing task and I don't think it's even particularly close.

Isnít it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Ė Douglas Adams

Originally Posted by GIMH

The reason people don't cheer for India is nothing to do with them being number one